A shorter version of this
essay appeared in The Springfield News-Leader on July 11, 2013
I am always astonished when anyone claims to know what God thinks! It is a rash claim, at best. A case in point is the recent editorial by Professor James D. Hernando (Professor of New Testament, Assemblies of God Theological Seminary, Springfield, MO). Dr. Hernando says "Marriage is God's idea. He created us as sexual beings and His loving plan for the fulfillment of our sexuality is a monogamous heterosexual union in marriage" (News-Leader 4/9/13: 3B). Actually Hernando is reciting his own ideal of marriage based on the Bible (Genesis). The Bible, however, is inconsistent on the subject of marriage. For example, polygamy was practiced among the ancient Hebrews (Gen 4:19, 16:1-4, 25:6, 26:34; Deut 21:15; Judges 8:30; 1 Samuel 1:1-2; 1 Kings 11:1-10; 1 Chronicles, 4:5; 2 Chron 11:21, 24:3). Particularly relevant is Deut 21:15, which shows God condoning polygamy. 1 Kings 11:1-10 portrays God as opposed to Solomon's marriage to foreign women because it would lead to the worship of foreign Gods rather than because God placed a high view on monogamous marriage—one man and one woman. In 2 Chron 24:1-3 Joash is extolled as "doing what was right in the eyes of the Lord all the days Jehoiada," while he was married to two wives. So God apparently did not always, if ever, hold to the idea of marriage that Hernando attributes to him.
Even in the New Testament the ideas about marriage do not measure up to Hernando's ideal view of marriage that he attributes to God. Paul, for example, preferred that men and women should remain single (1 Cor 7:6-9), but he granted marriage as a concession to human weakness ("better to marry than burn with [sexual] passion," 1 Cor 7:9). His rationale for his views lies in his mistaken idea that the end of the world was imminent (1 Cor 7:25-31). He sets out his reasons for singularity (not monogamy) in 1 Cor 7:32-35: marriage distracts from undivided devotion to God. His view of a kind of sexless or spiritual "marriage" is odd, to say the least. Apparently at Corinth unmarried men and women were living together without being married or engaging in sexual intercourse. Paul reassured them that if a couple decided to marry "it was not a sin" (1 Cor 7:36—it reflects a rather low view of marriage to refer to it as "not a sin"). Thus, the man who marries his virgin does well, but the man who refrains from marriage does better (1 Cor 7:38). With this statement Paul seems to put his stamp of approval on a kind of continent spiritual living together. And Paul argued, this kind of "union" (being accompanied by a sister as wife) was his "right," a right he shared with "the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas" (i.e., Peter: 1 Cor 9:5). Later writings after Paul do reflect Hernando's idea of "one man and one woman" (viz., 1 Tim 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6). In Paul's earliest letter a passage, usually considered to be about marriage, is unclear for a reader of the Greek text (1 Thess 4:4-8). Tertullian (2nd/3rd century), a presbyter and regarded as the founder of Latin Christianity, in trying to deal with the large number of virgins in the church (those having taken a vow of chastity) recommended that widowers take a virgin as a kind of spiritual wife into their homes. Indeed, "a plurality of such wives is pleasing to God" (Exhortation to Chastity 12).
Cyprian (Bishop of Carthage, middle third century) dealt with a similar situation differently than did Paul and Tertullian (Epistle 4). He stopped the practice of a man and a virgin living together, excommunicated the men who had been involved, but permitted the virgins who remained virgins and were resolved to continue as virgins to remain in the church. What today we see as radical actions, in antiquity was an attempt to deal with the large number of women who had taken vows of chastity. Celibacy was a religious ideal that was honored by the Christian church and thought to be approved by God—as Paul said, however, we don't all have the same gift. And a similar statement is attributed to Jesus about male castration: "whoever is able to receive it let him receive it" (Matt 19:12).
Knowing the mind of God is not information to which human beings are privy. No less a prophet than Isaiah said: "Who has known the mind of the Lord and been his counselor so as to instruct him" (Isa 40:13 Septuagint; quoted by Paul in 1 Cor 2:16). Paul wanted all his saints to have the "mind of Christ" (Phil 2:5), but not even Paul claimed to know the mind of God (1 Cor 2:11), even though he claimed to have the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16), which likely refers to Christ's self-giving attitude in life (Phil 2:2-10). The Bible, neither as a collection nor in its individual essays, embodies the mind of God, but represents one record of the human quest for God in the Judeo-Christian tradition. The best practice is steer clear of anyone who claims to have God's ear or know God's mind.
Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University
Please explain 'spiritual wife'. Pat Elliott Elli2@prodigy.net
ReplyDeleteGood Morning Pat,
DeleteWhat I was trying to describe was a relationship between two adults who were living together in a kind of "platonic" relationship--They did not have sexual intercourse. I suppose living together as spiritual brothers and sisters is its mildest form. What Tertullian was trying to accommodate was the need for virgins (young Christian women who had taken a vow of celibacy and chastity) to have their economic needs met to support for their celibate lifestyle. It was apparently not always successful as the actions of Cyprian show.
Cordially,
Charlie
I thought I understood what you were saying but I don't think others who read your blog understand and believe you were condoning plural wives. Far be it from me to tell you how to write but some of us aren't as knowledable as you and get wrong impressions.
DeleteI'm sure you are aware of the grade level of most readers of the News and Eagle. Perhaps more simplicity is in order.
Hi Pat,
DeleteThe printed page is likely the worst way to communicate--except for conversation! I do try to be clear and I realize there are different levels of expertise among my readers, but finding the golden mean in communication is like looking for a needle in a haystack--even with a magnet you seldom find it! So the next best are questions. I always told my classes that there was no such thing as dumb questions; there were only obscure lecturers. I welcome all questions.
Cordially,
Charlie
Of course, you know I am at the end of the communication spectrum being an interpreter for the deaf. I also write for deaf adults. Soooo, I tend to use the easiest words when I write. If an easy word is not available, I must explain the words and meanings.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how many readers will ask questions if they feel the writer will answer in a way they cannot understand.
In my SS class on Sunday, your article in the newspaper was mentioned. That is why I looked it up online. None of the nine ladies in my class had read the article because at first glance they thought you were opposed to traditional marriage.
I will explain to them on Sunday. :)
Thanks for listening and answering my question. Pat
I don't have the luxury of explaining words readily accessible from a dictionary. I am trying to keep the blog as concise as possible. People are not going to bother with a lengthy essay in a blog, so I have to make my points as briefly as possible and spend a great deal of time selecting the one word that best expresses the idea. I do explain technical terms, however. I am counting on people asking me if they do not understand something I said. Please explain to the ladies that I have been married to Peggy for 57 years and we are perfectly content with traditional marriage. If they want to blame someone for the "spiritual wives" statement, they should blame Tertullian--it was his idea to take a number of virgins into the home.
DeleteHi Charlie: I will explain to the ladies. They know you and Peggy and know you have had a long a happy life together. I think they are just confused about this and other things you write. I know you write to make people think. Not all people want to think. They want it written out in black and white what to think.
ReplyDeleteBut Tertullian's idea was not God's idea - am I right? Do we have recorded anywhere in history that spirtual wives were accepted in Christian society.
Forgive me for being dense. I am trying to learn. Thanks again for being patient with me. Pat
Good Morning Pat!
DeleteYou have asked me two questions I will not be able to answer completely. I addressed "What is Christian" in a blog Tuesday Oct 2, 2007 and again in The Fourth R 19.4 (July-August 2006): 3-8, 22. Basically diversity among early followers of Jesus was the rule until the fourth century when the Roman Emperor Constantine endorsed one of these competing groups who referred to themselves as "orthodox" and denounced all others as heretical. With the Roman Empire supporting the (self-proclaimed) orthodox group other groups were forced to go underground. The bottom line is that even today diversity is the rule, when you consider the theologies and practices of just the Reformation Churches alone. To your second question about Tertullian's idea not being God's idea I can only say that he must have believed that God approved--But neither Tertullian nor I can read minds, least of all God's mind. Cyprian of course, who could also not read God's mind, disagreed with Tertullian and put a stop to the practice. As to whether the trajectory of unmarried men and virgins living together that seems to have started with Paul continued to be practiced after Cyprian, I don't know. If we have a church historian who is a reader of this blog perhaps he or she will let us know. The egregious mistake that churches make is to assume that their ideas are God's ideas.
Cordially,
Charlie